Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

People v. Smith

People v. Smith, 57 A.D.3d 579 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2008)

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
2008-12-02
Topic
general

*580The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s closure of the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover police officers denied him the right to a public trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit (see People v Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 491 [1997]; People v Hodge, 53 AD3d 507 [2008]; People v Thomas, 52 AD3d 626 [2008]; People v Jemmott, 11 AD3d 638 [2004]; People v Martinez, 248 AD2d 730 [1998]). The defendant also contends that the Supreme Court’s response to the jury’s request for a readback of certain testimony denied him a fair trial. Since the defendant did not object to the court’s response, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Morris, 2 AD3d 652 [2003]). In any event, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in seeking clarification of the jury’s request for a readback of the three police officers’ testimony (see People v Cottrel, 275 AD2d 644 [2000]; People v Ortiz, 265 AD2d 431 [1999]).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Smith. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions

*580 The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s closure of the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover police officers denied him the right to a public trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit (see People v Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 491 [1997]; People v Hodge, 53 AD3d 507 [2008]; People v Thomas, 52 AD3d 626 [2008]; People v Jemmott, 11 AD3d 638 [2004]; People v Martinez, 248 AD2d 730 [1998]).

The defendant also contends that the Supreme Court’s response to the jury’s request for a readback of certain testimony denied him a fair trial. Since the defendant did not object to the court’s response, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Morris, 2 AD3d 652 [2003]). In any event, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in seeking clarification of the jury’s request for a readback of the three police officers’ testimony (see People v Cottrel, 275 AD2d 644 [2000]; People v Ortiz, 265 AD2d 431 [1999]). Moreover, the court did not pressure the jury to abandon its initial request to hear the testimony of the three police officers. The court advised the jury that “[it would] have no problem of [sic] doing it” and “[it was] happy to do it,” indicating a willingness to abide by the wishes of the jury (see People v Santiago, 231 AD2d 652 [1996]; People v Elie, 150 AD2d 719 [1989]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.